I was wondering what essays/scholarly articles are considered the “best” on the Mises website (obviously I’ve read quite a few already)
I’d like to know what to print out and read from the literature section.
Thanks in advance for recommendations.
I was going to make a topic like this, but I’ll suggest:
Towards a General Theory of Error Cycles (Hulsmann), all of Rasmussen and Den Uyl’s articles, Salerno has a good essay dehomogenizing (sp?) Mises and Hayek. Also of interest would be Hulsmann’s, Rothbard’s, Herbener’s and Hoppe’s articles concerning the differences between the Misesian and Hayekian expositions of the calculation debate (as well as the Kirzner article that started it). Hoppe has some wonderful articles on democracy, monarchy, civilization and time preference as well as his articles on immigration (and Block’s piece on the subject), class analysis and banking. Garrison, Cwik and Cochran all have very good articles on the business cycle, finally read some of Cantor’s literary analysis.
That’s all I can think of for now, but there’s plenty I’m missing.
I’ve read the Towards a General Theory of Error Cycles Hülsmann essay, but thanks for the other recommendations.
Giles already gave a good list, but I have to add Mises’s “Profit and Loss” and Roderick Long’s “Responses to Ten Objections.”
Rothbard’s Law, Property Rights and Air Pollution, as well as his In Defence of Extreme Apriorism.
I’ve actually printed out the entire Mises University Required Reading; it has a nice selection of material on history, methodology, business cycles, etc.
Yeah I’ve read quite a bit of that stuff, but at the same time I have tended to read similar stuff on the same topic, rather than the exact stuff they suggest.
I’m applying to go next summer 
Shostak and Reisman’s work (aside from his stuff on environmentalism) are generally top quality.
What’s wrong with his work on environmentalism?
I’ve quite enjoyed some of the stuff I’ve read by him.
I think he caricatures their positions too much.
I have a hard time believing this is possible.
I like Reisman, I think he’s a poor writer though, besides that though his writings on environmentalist tend to be rants.
Why? Do you honestly think most environmentalists believe the abject nonsense the extremists are taken to?
I find him to be a good, clear writer. When he is writing on economics.
Yes.
I think the position of being a right wing, capitalist, denier is manufactured, much like the position of vulgar libertarianism. Yes, Reisman may actually be a vulgar libertarian, but the mindless portrayal of everyone Austrian as vulgar, or everyone who is skeptical of AGW as an environmental denier is just a continuation of the slander tied to capitalism by the left. It’s been my big sticking point with left-libertarians and mutualists.
I’m not pro-state, and I’m not denying man may influence climate. But anything less than a shrieking, absolutist fanaticism is portrayed by these lunatics as my problem. They deliberately construct a false ideological paradigm, then ad hom everyone for not conforming with that false paradigm.
Frankly, I like George because he riles these people up, and they discredit themselves with their responses. It’s actually quite clever, and I wouldn’t doubt that he does it intentionally, because he is a brilliant man.